Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Herb induced liver injury (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
For the pathologist, the diagnosis of drug induced liver injury (DILI) is challenging, because histopathological features mimic all primary hepatic and biliary diseases, lacking changes that are specific for DILI. Therefore, in any patient of suspected DILI who underwent liver biopsy, the pathologist will assure the clinician that the observed hepatic changes are compatible with DILI, but this information is less helpful due to lack of specificity. Rather, the pathologist should assess liver biopsies blindly, without knowledge of prior treatment by drugs. This will result in a detailed description of the histological findings, associated with suggestions for potential causes of these hepatic changes. Then, it is up to the physician to reassess carefully the differential diagnoses, if not done before. At present, liver histology is of little impact establishing the diagnosis of DILI with the required degree of certainty, and this shortcoming also applies to herb induced liver injury (HILI). To reach at the correct diagnoses of DILI and HILI, clinical and structured causality assessments are therefore better approaches than liver histology results obtained through liver biopsy, an invasive procedure with a low complication rate.
Herbal hepatotoxicity is a rare but highly disputed disease because numerous confounding variables may complicate accurate causality assessment. Case evaluation is even more difficult when the WHO global introspection method (WHO method) is applied as diagnostic algorithm. This method lacks liver specificity, hepatotoxicity validation, and quantitative items, basic qualifications required for a sound evaluation of hepatotoxicity cases. Consequently, there are no data available for reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Its scope is also limited by the fact that it cannot discriminate between a positive and a negative causality attribution, thereby stimulating case overdiagnosing and overreporting. The WHO method ignores uncertainties regarding daily dose, temporal association, start, duration, and end of herbal use, time to onset of the adverse reaction, and course of liver values after herb discontinuation. Insufficiently considered or ignored are comedications, preexisting liver diseases, alternative explanations upon clinical assessment, and exclusion of infections by hepatitis A-C, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus (HSV), and varicella zoster virus (VZV). We clearly prefer as alternative the scale of CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences) which is structured, quantitative, liver specific, and validated for hepatotoxicity. In conclusion, causality of herbal hepatotoxicity is best assessed by the liver specific CIOMS scale validated for hepatotoxicity rather than the obsolete WHO method that is liver unspecific and not validated for hepatotoxicity. CIOMS based assessments will ensure the correct diagnosis and exclude alternative diagnosis that may require other specific therapies.